SEETHALAKSHMI Vs. RADHAMANIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these proceedings originate from different orders in different suits, since the cause of action in the respective suits is the same, these petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. The facts are being referred to as are available in the original petition.

(2.) THE 1st respondent before this Court seems to have instituted O.S. No. 76/2010 before the Munsiff Court, Haripad. That was a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the petitioners before this Court from obstructing the right of use of C schedule pathway and tampering with the same detrimental to the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) THE petitioners before this Court filed an objection to I.A. No. 494/2014, petition to remove the case from the list. Then I.A. No. 493/2014 was moved by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 76/2010 seeking to have joint trial of O.S. No. 76/2010 and the newly instituted suit namely, O.S. No. 91/2014. To that also, the petitioners before this Court filed their objections. The petitioners later filed Ext.P9 petition as I.A. No. 885/2014 in O.S. No. 91/2014 contending that the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the plaint may be rejected on that ground. The respondents herein filed their objections on 11.08.2014. The parties were heard by the learned Munsiff and the learned Munsiff allowed the petition to remove the case from the list and also the petition praying for joint trial, and dismissed the petition for rejecting the newly instituted suit under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.